[Josh] I have decided to leave this list shortly, however before I do so I shall respond to your message, which in true form, adopts the theological bullying tactics so favoured by you and your fraternity.

[Josh] Perhaps it will also encourage the "entire world" to see the scant disregard you maintain toward others who are of contrary perspective to yourself. Ironically I have always maintained that the vast majority of Catholics cling to a notion of a mythical pseudo-intellectual, secular holiness (although one would have to admit that most seem more secular holy than pseudo-intellectual).

[Josh] Perhaps your readers will see the true measure of this point in your stirling example of common decency.

[Josh] Hopefully your readers on your site, though few in number, will realise the ciclical nature of history, as yet again, fervent in the name of Catholicism, you rampantly attempt to blood the non-Catholic infidel with the sword of "righteousness".

[Josh] I don't intend to read your treatise.

[Josh] I have not attempted to discredit Irenaeus for my own expediency…..

[Josh] ….a claim that is certainly rather ironic considering that your site contains numerous barbs about a member of the Fellowship, "Nathan Barker", whom you seem intent on disparaging to the point of absurdity. The section that criticises his site design is more revealling about your character than any of your lengthy discourses are indicative of your intellect.

[Josh] Theologians are not archelogists, neither are they historians and there is a very clear distinction between a Biblical historian and a general historian. Hopefully your readers will also appreciate the rich irony of the above statement, whereupon you cite mystical "theologians" and "historians" without providing names and details. Was this not your principal criticism of my arguments?

[Josh] Incidentally, the information I obtained about Iranaeus and his writings was sourced from the Encyclopedia Britannica and an authoritive Catholic copilation. This thus leads to two possibilities with the above statement: either the Catholic theological establishment is in grave error or your commentary is selective. I think I know which is which.

In the same Catholic compilation, the article on Irenaeus and his writings ends with this statement:

"The four fragments which Pfaff published in 1715, ostensibly from a Turin manuscript, have been proven by Funk to be apocryphal, and Harnack has established the fact that Pfaff himself fabricated them."

[Josh] Actually the heresies he condemned were generally gnostic in nature and it was this that formed the fundamental principal of most of his works.

[Josh] I confess to being unfamiliar with many of the "early church fathers" - an admission you will recieve with smug satisfaction. I do, however, understand that a number of "early church fathers" did indeed hold to a similar stance as presented by the Fellowship today.

[Josh] Of course not, although a number of educated guesses can provide a basic chronological framework. Nonetheless, you've missed my point again. Irenaeus is a historical figure of some debate along with many of his writings, which are considered textually unreliable.

[Josh] The apostles St. Peter, St. Paul and so forth are not historical figures of debate. There is no doubt concerning their existence, nor the accuracy of their writings. Furthermore, both these points can be proved with the sheer number of early manuscripts that have been uncovered, all of which prove the their existence and the validity of their writings. The same cannot be said for Irenaeus, which immediately casts anything you cite from this particular church father in some doubt. If his birth and death cannot even be ascertained with any reliability, and only fragments of his writings have yet been uncovered (many of them cited by third parties), it has to be admitted that a degree of scepticism is required in this case.

[Josh] This is not something you will recieve well, because the logical principal you base your argument on is primarily historical, not theological.

[Josh] Since your fundamental intention is to use myself as a representative of the entire Fellowship and since your interests are best served by trying to intellectually out-gun me, I would suggest your refrain from adding this to your site. Perceptive people do tend to see through it.

[Clay original] It certainly is irrelevant - the very > Bible that you use was not a concept that "emerged > fully-formed from the mouth of Jesus Christ".

[Josh replies] Your own church disagrees with you. The Bible is considered the inspired word of God, preserved by his grace through the vehicle of his church and people. If this was some sort of cunning trap, it didn't work.

[Josh] Your own religion's theological fraternity disagrees with you again. In fact, the Catholic theologian who penned my authoritive text states clearly that the only consistent ritual practiced (celebrated) in the Catholic Church from its inception, to the present day, is the monetary collection.

[Josh] The theologian also makes it clear, as does the authoritive New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, that infant baptism developed ritually and theologically as much as any of the sacraments. This is seen in the interesting example of the concept of Catholic "marriage". Marriage only became a Catholic sacrament in the 12th century.